The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1887-03-24
AN ABLE DOCUMENT.
The Only Accurate Text Of Judge Ral'y'S
Charge to the Jury
In the Case OF Samuel DeVaux' ChArseo
with MAnsIaughter. for Shooting
and Killing Joseph POlus,a
Fleeing Prisoner.

The DEMOCRAT takes pleasure In pre-
aantjn0 to ils readers to-day the COM
nIete and only accurate text Of Judge
RsIey's charge to the jury in the case OF
Samuel DeVsux, Marshal Of Louisville,
indicted for maDslaughter for shooting
and killing Joseph POlus, an offender
fleeing from Justice. The case attracted
mnch attention and when the jury re-
turned verdict of not guilty the people
OF Louisville as q unit congratulated
Dsyaux. The Repository Thursday
Awoke from its leth"rgy and made q
stupid attempt at enterprise by publish
ing an unintelligible, mixed up. abOr-
tive mass of stuff, pslmed upon the I'm
susDecting readers as Judge RR'ey's
charge In this case. The Judge dlsownS
the Repository offspring. Following Is
the genuine charge, accurately given:
CHARGE OF THE COURT.
GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY:-The de-
fendant, Samuel DeVaux, is charged with
unlswf1l'y killing Joseph Polus, Jr., at
Stark county, Ohio, on the 24th day OF
May, 1885. This charge is what is known
as manslaughter. Under our statute,
there are three degrees Of homicide: the
highest degree is known as murder In
the frat degree, the next is murder In
the second degree, and the loves! grade
Is manslaughter.
Il is not necessary that l should state
or discuss the elements OF the crime OF
murder In either the first, or second de-
gree. Neither Of those crimes is charged
directly against the defendant; nor is
there one Of them embraced In the
charge that is made against him. The
OILY crime charged Is manslsughter,
and l shall call your attention part1cu
larly to the separate parts OF this charg',
and what is necessary for the state to
prove, before you can find the DEFENDANT
guilty. Before you can find the defend
ant guilty, you must find the following
propositions to be true: first, that Joseph
Poins, Jr., Is dead; second, that the de-
fendant, Samuel DeVaux, killed Josph
POIus, Jr; third, that he killed him
about the Gath day Of May, 1886;
fourth, that he fred the shot, or
did the act, which caused his
death in Stark county, Ohio; fifth, that
the defendant unlawfully killed him.
As TO some of these propositions there
may be but little, If any, controversy,
but still you must dnd from the evi-
dence in this case that each one OF them
First, is Joseph POlus, Jr., dead. II
You find that he Is, then you will pro-
ceed to the next proposition: Did Samuel
Dsvaux kill Joseph POlus, Jr. II the
defendant shot at, and hit the deceased,
Joseph Polus, Jr., with pistol ball and
thereby inflicted upon him wound, of
which he afterwards died, you may find
that the defendant killed him. II you
flDd that the defendant did kill Joseph
Polus, Jr., you will next proceed to In
uuire il he killed him about the Gath day
Of May, 1885. It is not necessary that 1t
should be Just that day, or just that
month. 1t is sufficient IL you find that
1t was about that time and some time,
at least, before the finding of the indict-
ment In this case, which was at the Sep
tember term of this Court, for the year
1886. Next, you will inquire whether
the shot was fred, If you find one was
fred, at the deceased, Joseph P0lus, Jr.,
by the defendant, within the limits Of
Stark county; Ohio. It ls only crimes
committed within the limits of Stark
county. Ohio, over which this Court has
any Jurisdiction. If you find that the
defendant killed Joseph POlas, Jr., about
Mae oath, 1886, at Stark county, Ohio,
then You Will proceed to the next and
last proposition: Did he do 1t unlawful
lyP This brings US to the consideration
Of the crime of manslaughter, and the
most serious question for your consider.
alton.
Manslaughter is defined to be the un-
lawful killing Of another, without NAL
Ice, either expressed or implied, which |
may be either voluntary, upon q sud
den heat or passion, In hot blood |
as 1t is said, or inadvertently, while the |
SLAYER is In the commission OF some un- |
lawful act. In either case 1t is the un-
lawful killing that max maDslaugh- |
ter. There may be killing or homicide,
as it is termed In law, that Is excusable, /
or that Is justifisDle. There Is slight |
distinction between the two. A homi-
eide committed in self-defense is said to
be excusable; that is, II man is com.
pelled to kill another to save his own
life or prevent great bodily harm, that
is said to be excusable. A homicide
committed by an officer in the discharge /
of his dutg is said to be justi6able, and
of these justif1able hOmicides there are
two divisions; In one an officer is COM
manded to take the life of an offender;
that Ia termed iustihsble homicide by
command Of the law; the other is where
an officer is permitted to take the life Of
an offender; this Is termed justihable
homicide by permission Of the law, and
1t ls this last division to which 1t is
claimed this particular case belongs.
The rule of law is, In cases of justiaa0le
homicide by permission Of the law, as
nnTA Anwuu hJ Wharfnn nf tho mO1f |
eminent writers on criminal law In
America, that 80 far as concerns Off
GERS, where felony has been commit"
ted, and the party fees from justice, he
may be killed In the pursuit II he can
not otherwise be OVertaken, and that
the reasonable rule is, that where q man
flies from arrest, the charge being q
mere trespass, or an 0ffense equivalent
to trespass, to kill him In prevention
of the escape is at least manSlsughter,
but 1t is otherwise supposing the arrest
to be duly authorized and notice duly
given, where the Offense is OF higher
grade, as saving life or public safety"
The same rule is laid down by
highlands most illustri0us eOmmen-
tatOr, go, II an officer has warrant
against A by name for felony, or II A is
indicted for felony, In these cases, II A,
though innocent, flies or resists and he
is killed by the officer, or any other per-
son aiding him during flight or resist
Rnce, the person killing him Is indem-
nifed." Again, the same author says,
''in these instances Of justifable homi-
eide 1t may be observed that the slayer
is in no Kind Of fault whatever, not
even to the minutest degree, and is
therefore totally acquitted and dis.
charged, with c0mmendatiOn rather
than blame" And / will say to you
that the rule Of law is that an officer
duly authorized to serve a state wax